5/23/2010

“Rep. Joe Sestak, winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, is refusing to provide more information on what job he was offered by a White House official to drop of that race, although he confirmed again that the incident occurred.

The White House was backing incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the primary. Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official – a potential violation of federal law – but has not offered any specifics on conversation. Republicans are trying to use the issue against Sestak in the November Senate race.

“It’s interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that’s all I had to say about it.” Sestak said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That’s their responsibility.”

“Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform committee, said Sestak needs to explain what job he was offered and who at the White House was involved. Sestak, who beat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Democratic Senate primary on Tuesday, said on a Philadelphia radio station in February that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the race.

Issa said he or another member of Congress would file a formal complaint to the House ethics committee by July 4 if someone else doesn’t bring the matter to the Office of Congressional Ethics, which handles ethics complaints from outside groups.
***
“I’m not sure what the truth is, I’m not sure what his full statement would be,” Issa said of Sestak. “Practically everyone that interviews him comes back with the same thing: he can’t be allowed to make an allegation against the White House and then say enough is said. It doesn’t work that way. Either he’s lying, or covering up felonies for political purposes.”

This could be a problem for the Democrats and the White House. If a complaint is filed and the Democrats stall — as they tend to do, do they really want Republicans in charge of this investigation if the GOP wins control of the House in November?

If the White House had offered a job, in what way would that be illegal?

It seems to me that if Sestak is qualified for some position Obama wanted to appoint him to, and Obama said, “You want the opportunity to be a bigger player on the national stage? You don’t have to go to the trouble of running for Senate, I’ve got this job that needs to be filled that is right up your alley.”

Of course you then have the issue that even if no law was initially broken, somebody may have lied afterward. Better get Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate.

Of course, the idea that Sestak owes his allegiance to the Clintons raises the possibility of all manner of plot twists.

It depends on how the offer was made. If there was a quid pro quo — “I offer you this job but only if you drop out of the race” — it may run afoul of 18 U.S. 211 or 18 USC 600. The odds are it wasn’t that explicit but Sestak’s statements don’t make that clear.

Philly Doc….
It seems that there is a Federal Statute that proscribes the offer of Federal Employment for political favors, and this has been referenced not only in the Sestak controversy, but in an earlier race in Colorado for the Senate seat vacated by DoI Sec Salazar.

Although I imagine that even if there was a quid pro quo there could be arguments over it, such as:
Obama: “What political favors? I’m the President, he can’t do anything to benefit me whether he wanted to or not or if wanted something or not.”

I’m raising that purely as speculation from the point of view of seeing TV shows and reading articles about the law (oh, and looking at how the CIA lied through its teeth about Plame while not appearing to lie through its teeth). Please forgive any evidence of total lack of comprehension.

In other words, there’s more evidence that Barney Frank and Chis Dodd should already be sitting in jail.

…do they really want Republicans in charge of this investigation if the GOP wins control of the House in November?

Beyond that, imagine if the Republican takes the Senate (highly unlikely but bear with me) and Sestak wins in PA. The Senate could, as part of the investigation, refuse to seat Sestak until the matter is resolved; it is in their power under the Constitution.